(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
it's handing out newspapers
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:Worked for National Lampoon is it blocking the freeway to keep a bunch of lousy drivers off the road
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:is it blocking the freeway to keep a bunch of lousy drivers off the road 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:is it blocking the freeway to keep a bunch of lousy drivers off the road lol goddamn
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
tweakin deez nips at all the probes
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
mods pls change my name to fyadlite code gargler
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
rip croups weird Baader–Meinhof Group ploy love u tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:it takes time to transition to a new equilibrium of unalienated relations between people, widespread consciousness (beyond revolutionary practice to frequent internal struggle and consistent education) and cement the gains of revolution world revolution and redistribution imposed by magical fiat could happen tomorrow and you wouldn't see those changes in the population in your lifetime op, communism is a generational project and any individual actor doesn't get to see the whole scope or path
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
DragQueenofAngmar posted:world revolution and redistribution imposed by magical fiat could happen tomorrow and you wouldn't see those changes in the population in your lifetime op, communism is a generational project and any individual actor doesn't get to see the whole scope or path I was answering Pomeroy's question: how are you defining class rule? does a dictatorship of the proletariat exist at the point of revolution? or when? or is it a process? what i've been exploring with my reading for the last year is suggesting to me that you need to be at the point of self-reproducing ideology which we see through the example of Parenti's "Inventing Reality" in every Capitalist social apparatus/ISA my argument is that mao was heading this way before a focus on the productive forces, that a DotP is a process and that process was stopped and reversed. also that it's prerequisite to success & sustainability, communism vs something less assured as V. Ilych L. described. even Lenin was talking about a cultural revolution in the 1920s this makes what Totality said even more interesting because can you really create that without hegemony? maybe there was no other path than Dengism, but not because productive forces were dominant also goes back to the original internal argument with Mao, which as far as i remember and on a quick scan is not addressed by Boer in Socialism w/Chinese Characteristics (the textbook Cuttlefish posted) or Losurdo in Western Marxism (both of which are solid books)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
DragQueenofAngmar posted:world revolution and redistribution imposed by magical fiat could happen tomorrow and you wouldn't see those changes in the population in your lifetime op, communism is a generational project and any individual actor doesn't get to see the whole scope or path well I will because I plan to live forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
i don't think it makes sense to claim that reform and opening up represents the loss and reversal of the dictatorship of the proletariat given its long-term effects on the proletariat. they've got way more trains and poo poo now! the bourgeoisie have probably benefited in greater proportion than the proletariat, but would the working class, en masse, really have preferred to cut off its nose to spite its face rather than modernize? like you can't pretend the chinese didn't give decentralized economic autarky a go. the party turned away from it and towards foreign capital for practical reasons
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
In China's case i'd argue that isn't even true. the gains of the working class eclipse the downside of having to suffer a few more ultra wealthy individuals, besides the ultimate goal of socialism and therefore communism is to lift all up into wealth, which is why arguing that "billionaires exist therefore capitalism" and "communism means everyone stays even (and poor)" are both non sequiturs
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:In China's case i'd argue that isn't even true. the gains of the working class eclipse the downside of having to suffer a few more ultra wealthy individuals, besides the ultimate goal of socialism and therefore communism is to lift all up into wealth, which is why arguing that "billionaires exist therefore capitalism" and "communism means everyone stays even (and poor)" are both non sequiturs well i mean "in proportion" very literally and on the individual level, like taking the average mao vs. post-mao worker (still a worker, maybe no longer needs to do guerilla warfare -> gets worse welfare but much better commodities and public works) vs the average mao vs. post-mao capitalist (expropriated or in prison or something -> fantastically rich) (this is probably inaccurate since on the one hand my understanding is that plenty of capitalists, contra landlords, got through the revolution still owning factories or whatever because it was too much trouble to expropriate them, and on the other hand there are plenty of small-to-medium business owners and/or outright failures in a capitalist economy) i take your point though that when you multiply relative gains by the POPULATION of each class it looks a lot better for the proles
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:(this is probably inaccurate since on the one hand my understanding is that plenty of capitalists, contra landlords, got through the revolution still owning factories or whatever because it was too much trouble to expropriate them, and on the other hand there are plenty of small-to-medium business owners and/or outright failures in a capitalist economy) and to this I once again point out that one of the four stars in China's flag represents the national bourgeoisie, because while getting them on the side of the CPC was a deliberate strategy during the second civil war, they also formed a pillar of SWCC to mao I think this is why some ultra-leaning types are so quick to dismiss deng as a divergence of Chinese socialist thought (vice mao), when in reality, although they both had disagreements on the matter, they agreed on the general path overall for the construction of socialism. and phrasing it as "had disagreements" may even be overly understating it, but necessary for emphasis that the larger course was conceived mostly the same way in each case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
here's the thing, though. now that we're going to have room-temperature superconductors easily produced in a backyard furnace, the great leap forward is completely vindicated
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:I was answering Pomeroy's question: how are you defining class rule? I really don't see how insisting that something can only be called "actually existing socialism," which I'm sure we would both agree is, by definition, a protracted transitional stage, with its own internal contradictions, once a given level of ideological hegemony is reached, is clearer, or more useful than, say, referring to relatively more or less advanced stages of socialist construction. If perfect hegemony is the standard, did Bourgeois dictatorship first come into existence in the postwar USA? I think it's much clearer, and more useful to be able to say, "revisionist misleadership is endangering socialism, endangering the dictatorship of the proletariat, workers must fight to save them!" VS "Revisionism has, by its mere existence in office, transformed socialism and working class rule into something else, something that we cannot defend as socialist." The only usefulness I can see in the second would be if one were needing a left sounding justification for, say, an alliance with imperialism against a country led by revisionists. Hypothetically. Pomeroy has issued a correction as of 02:15 on Aug 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:here's the thing, though. now that we're going to have room-temperature superconductors easily produced in a backyard furnace, the great leap forward is completely vindicated care to elaborate about that if you would be so kind because I haven't managed to read anything proper about this yet
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:care to elaborate about that if you would be so kind because I haven't managed to read anything proper about this yet i haven't followed it closely myself but there's some promising thing that MIGHT be a good superconductor that's super cheap and straightforward to make
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i haven't followed it closely myself but there's some promising thing that MIGHT be a good superconductor that's super cheap and straightforward to make Yeah, I have seen some of the stuff being discussed which is some amazing poo poo, and the fact that the people involved in it are brawling over who gets to have their name on the paper, which is usually a pretty good sign
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
i'm much better at scolding liberals for thinking they have graduated kindergarten-level marxism, as kindergarten-level marxism is where my familiarity lies, but i think there's a generic, if somewhat tautological marxist explanation for why "bourgeoisie exist therefore not socialism/communism" is not a useful critique. would love for post-kindergarten marxists to correct me where necessary. industrial society ultimately is always monopolized by the contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie class interests. there is no existing arrangement of industrial society that does not have these classes monopolize how that society is defined. capitalist society is not one where the bourgeoisie have abolished the proletariat, it can't be, because the bourgeoisie's existence is defined by and relies upon the proletariat to exploit production from. socialist society is not one where the proletariat have abolished the bourgeoisie, it can't be, because the proletariat's existence is defined and relies upon the bourgeoisie to exploit the particular products of their labor and convert it into capital (i.e. convert chairs from the chair factory into universally-transactional value tokens that can be used to pay for the further development of any/all modes of production). communist society is where neither the proletariat nor the bourgeoisie exist, because communist society is definitionally a society without class or the state. building communism is not metaphorical, it requires great development of the productive forces, such that even if society must be dominated by proletarian class interests, it will still rely on the function of the bourgeoisie to greatly develop the productive forces. even if society were to commit to the usual left communist solution of "all ownership is divided between worker co-ops and democratic state control so that there are no more bourgeois individuals" you would still wind up with all the inherent pressures of industrial society seeking to produce capital causing said co-ops and/or state to organically reproduce bourgeois class interests anyways. also why there needs to be a consistent, ideologically-militant communist vanguard to actually steer industrial society towards communism. because industrial society in its organic, self-serving state only "cares" about which class is dominant between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, not in the abolition of that class dynamic.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
why is the bourgeoisie required to develop productive forces? Why would democratically run factories running within a DotP necessarily become bourgeois?? Idgi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:why is the bourgeoisie required to develop productive forces? Why would democratically run factories running within a DotP necessarily become bourgeois?? Idgi. It's a pretty fuckin strong productive apparatus, it seems hard to argue against that point for starters. If China wants to allow the bourgeoisie to exist under the control of the state and use that productive apparatus to elevate the conditions of all the people of the country then the thing that they need to worry about is making sure that the bourgeoisie do not take control of the state and use it to oppress the working class, as is done in capitalist society. If the state maintains supremacy over the bourgeoisie and maintains a focus on elevation of the working class, it seems that they will maintain a course of improving the conditions of all people in the country, and if the contradiction between the working class and bourgeoisie becomes a forced issue then the state can force the issue in favor of the working class. Considering that China does not seem reluctant to prosecute billionaires and sentence them to death when it deems necessary I feel like they're probably doing fine in that regard. e: additionally, allowing the bourgeoisie to exist did a lot to stop America from loving with them for the second half of the 20th century, along with them becoming the manufacturing base for the planet earth Miles Blundell has issued a correction as of 04:23 on Aug 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 04:12
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:why is the bourgeoisie required to develop productive forces? Bald Stalin posted:Why would democratically run factories running within a DotP necessarily become bourgeois?? Idgi. they never stopped being (or rather, containing the interests of the) bourgeoisie op; dominance of the proletariat is not the immediate extinction of the bourgeoisie. the extinction of the bourgeoisie will only occur as a simultaneous development of the extinction of the proletariat and the end of industrial capitalism, which is definitionally not a dictatorship of the proletariat (because they dont exist anymore)
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
In practical terms, the average worker likely doesn't know how to manage the entire enterprise. The extant capitalists (ignoring the fact that contemporary ones mostly appear to be clueless fucks) more likely do. That's a degree of knowledge that can be useful, and thus should be utilized when actually managing any given enterprise. Lenin and Mao have written as much - as long as they can be subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat, their knowledge can be useful, especially at the start of the revolution. After a few generations you can pluck from experienced proles to then further maintain productive forces and develop new ones, knowing that they're well versed in how things work (the forces of production) and towards what end (socialism). And if they get a whiff of that classic bourgeoisie stink, you can corral and punish them. Like what China recently did to that former party chief who was handed a suspended death sentence for accepting millions of dollars in bribes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
for the record i actually disagree with everybody who talks about keeping the bourgeoisie around for practical purposes as if it were some liberated choice that marxist politics makes. it doesnt matter how useful the vanguard thinks that the existence of the bourgeoisie may or may not be, under industrial economics the existence of the bourgeoisie is axiomatic and must be accepted in the present in order to move forward towards its abolition
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Sincere question, I'm a kindergarten marxist: Regarding the bourgeoisie, isn't there a difference between keeping individuals around versus keeping the entire class as is around? In other words, isn't it self-evident that their abolition as a class the entire goal (one of many)? In which case keeping them around post-revo means going to people that were bourg and telling them essentially "you're with us or you're against us"? Straight up keeping the class around seems antithetical to the entirety of Marxism. You just have liberalism with a strong welfare state and higher taxes at best at that point, no? e: my initial post was based on a misreading of bald stalin's questions fwiw. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Abolishment of the concept of class and the end of class struggle as a result is the end goal of Marxism, in the form of Communism, yes. That end state is generations away from us even if America collapses tomorrow and the world is freed entirely from it's yoke. It's something we work toward, trying to immediately change over to the end state of humanity is just anarchism, which is inherently stupid and childish. Socialism is a long term transitional state of affairs, it's not meant to be an instant victory even without external opposition. The perfect development of humanity is not such an easy thing as to be done by a single state which comprises only a fifth of the human population, as high as that may seem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
Tsitsikovas posted:In practical terms, the average worker likely doesn't know how to manage the entire enterprise. The extant capitalists (ignoring the fact that contemporary ones mostly appear to be clueless fucks) more likely do. That's a degree of knowledge that can be useful, and thus should be utilized when actually managing any given enterprise. Lenin and Mao have written as much - as long as they can be subordinated to the dictatorship of the proletariat, their knowledge can be useful, especially at the start of the revolution. After a few generations you can pluck from experienced proles to then further maintain productive forces and develop new ones, knowing that they're well versed in how things work (the forces of production) and towards what end (socialism). isn't this conflating 'capitalist' with 'managerial labour'
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:I really don't see how insisting that something can only be called "actually existing socialism," which I'm sure we would both agree is, by definition, a protracted transitional stage, with its own internal contradictions, once a given level of ideological hegemony is reached, is clearer, or more useful than, say, referring to relatively more or less advanced stages of socialist construction. agreed on the first part and good point on the second part. those ideological structures have grown alongside capitalism at every step. Pomeroy posted:I think it's much clearer, and more useful to be able to say, "revisionist misleadership is endangering socialism, endangering the dictatorship of the proletariat, workers must fight to save them!" oh i agree wholeheartedly and framing the latter in this clear way really reveals this tendency as dogmatism
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:ultra-leaning types are so quick to dismiss deng as a divergence of Chinese socialist thought (vice mao), when in reality, although they both had disagreements on the matter, they agreed on the general path overall for the construction of socialism. and phrasing it as "had disagreements" may even be overly understating it, but necessary for emphasis that the larger course was conceived mostly the same way in each case. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
exmarx posted:isn't this conflating 'capitalist' with 'managerial labour' yeah in the GLF the engineers and workers came up with better and more efficient (i.e. profitable) methods and solutions at the factory level, which i mean if you've worked in industrial manufacturing you'd expect that, and the same optimization on the supply chain level again isn't really guided by the c-suite. the only useful knowledge i think you'd want to extract but which could still be learned with trial and error are strategic decisions on geography and investment. but they also did pretty drat good there too for far more practical reasons (e.g. the so-called teapot refineries). Bald Stalin posted:why is the bourgeoisie required to develop productive forces? Why would democratically run factories running within a DotP necessarily become bourgeois?? Idgi. Tsitsikovas posted:Straight up keeping the class around seems antithetical to the entirety of Marxism. You just have liberalism with a strong welfare state and higher taxes at best at that point, no? yeah that's the nature of this whole discussion---it's walking a highwire tightrope. my controversial opinion has been that without having "completed" the cultural revolution, it's a tightrope with no net, or in more concrete terms: V. Illych L. posted:china was really lucky that the americans considered the soviets a greater threat, allowing them a fairly long reprieve during which they could make themselves indispensable to the world economy
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
exmarx posted:isn't this conflating 'capitalist' with 'managerial labour' I fundamentally misread Bald Stalin's post tbh, which is what I was answering. It was late I was tired, I read it as a question pertaining to a post-revolution society, not a broader ask regarding a core concept of Capital (the book). But yeah I think I pretty much was. I was trying to say that "the bourgeoisie class post revo will either get expelled or be brought in as managerial labor" and even then Im probably thinking petty-bourg. I'm not well versed yet in terminology. Working on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
the (former) bourgeoisie are useful to a really-existing socialist revolution in two ways: 1. they have managerial experience that many workers don't and so can be tapped for knowledge on how to run big operations. this utility is temporary since, of course, workers can eventually learn that stuff for themselves, and disambiguate a capitalist's function as foreman/conductor from their function as overseer/disciplinarian 2. the global bourgeoisie hold a monopoly on various technical and physical resources, and they won't let you have any of that stuff unless they feel like they're dealing with their fellow bourgeoisie. if you want to be able to benefit from global trade or investment you need to dangle your bourgeoisie like an anglerfish lure in front of foreign capitalists. this, too, is necessarily of temporary utility, since past a certain point you'll have developed your own productive forces to the point that you don't need to let the bourgeoisie drive them around to watch them grow both of these are historically contingent needs. the bourgeoisie in and of themselves don't have some sort of special sauce that makes you more productive. on the contrary, the reason they're eventually going to be overthrown as a class is that the relations they operate under harm productivity past a certain point! if a bunch of communists just got isekai'd to an island somewhere they wouldn't have to cultivate capitalism before they could build socialism, and probably could just horizontally GLF themselves to post-scarcity. but if they're surrounded on all sides by hostile capitalists and need to retain the good will of the masses who, themselves, would quite like to have electricity and consumer goods, it's another story
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
I think that point 2 is critically important. I often feel that the international aspect of industrial human civilization and existence within American hegemonic imperialism is something that people don't take into account often enough when they think about socialism. You can't just expect America to stand by and let you have a powerful country without rich people, they will loving kill you. Acting like China or any other state exists in a vacuum leads to some pretty stupid takes about how they're not developing the productive forces of the country in the most morally just way possible and how that means they're actually bad. They're working in the real world, not a fantasy one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
a good example here is vietnam, as described in luna oi's "is vietnam socialist?" video somewhere on youtube. communist vietnam used to be able to depend on the ussr to provide them with various technical and subsistence resources. then the ussr fell, so the vietnamese could basically choose either 1. total economic autarky in which they bootstrap themselves the rest of the way to modern development 2. liberalizing their economy so that they could take out loans and things to reach modern development way faster 1 wouldn't have been impossible. but it would have meant lagging massively behind every other country that did integrate itself into the capitalist world-system. is 1 the actual socialist choice, given that it entails damning your country's working class to a lower standard of life for a much longer time than 2? it's not ALWAYS the case that socialist revolution and direction increases proletarian standard of living, c.f. karl radek, but if your power depends on the approval of the masses rather than the approval of your fellow ideologically-aligned elites you actually do need to deliver running water and antibiotics at some point, especially if you just got done being insanely and relentlessly bombed it's not that choice #2 here represents a necessarily compromise against the purity or true socialism of choice #1. choice #1 would have been less socialist, because the point of scientific socialism as compared against utopian socialism or anarchism or whatever is that it's how you win rather than lose, and #1 would've been a fast way to lose
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Sunny Side Up posted:yeah that's the nature of this whole discussion---it's walking a highwire tightrope. my controversial opinion has been that without having "completed" the cultural revolution, it's a tightrope with no net Been spending my summer getting back to basics, and reading a lot. Real quick: got a degree in cultural studies, all my profs were structuralist AF, spent the next decade being a dopey half-assed anarchist increasingly disenchanted with the entire ethos in the US. Anyway... Recently, I found this from Marx, in the preface of his "Critique to the Critique of Political Economy" Marx posted:In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. Not necessarily to counter your argument, but I found it interesting how steadfast the materialist senses of Marx were. Figure its relevant to where your heads seemingly at. It''s a tightrope for sure but part of the whole Base/Superstructure formula is that they feed off each other. I don't think your point is exactly controversial but people generally work off concrete proof. You don't change the culture without addressing material needs. Of course this is where poo poo like fascism can come on in, and why liberalism is such a failure - you can get anyone to buy into any ideology if you feed house and clothe them. Bringing this to china: I think you can see the CPC is very steadfast in maintaining their culture (SWCC) because of both affecting material changes (leading the way in increasing standards of living and combating climate change) AND reinforcing cultural standards. You can see examples in how they handle political corruption (the recent case of Zhou Jiangyong being charged with probationary death penalty for accepting bribes), or how they handled Jack Ma. Yes, Jack Ma is allowed to exist but it's still wild that a state government did what they did to him within that context. Imagine a western government cancelling an IPO and forcing a CEO to step down and get out of the public eye. Imagine if the US did that to Jeff Bezos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:the (former) bourgeoisie are useful to a really-existing socialist revolution in two ways: this
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:1. total economic autarky in which they bootstrap themselves the rest of the way to modern development this also requires resources be put into a nuclear weapon or other form of military deterrent like preparations for guerilla war. Direct invasion or the arming of domestic saboteurs is always an option for imperialists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:this also requires resources be put into a nuclear weapon or other form of military deterrent like preparations for guerilla war. Direct invasion or the arming of domestic saboteurs is always an option for imperialists. well they could just make friends with someone good at mining uranium
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2023 20:25
|
|